Lord Adonis: Yes, my Lords, the Government make resources available to local authorities for youth work through the formula grants and for next year those resources will increase by 3.7 per cent. Local authorities in England are budgeting to spend £403 million on youth work in the current year, an increase of £14.4 million on last year and up from £288 million six years ago. Specific changes to youth service spending for 12 to 16 year-olds are not, however, identifiable within those reported figures.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Local authorities will still be required to report their spending on youth services separately, and they will, of course, have a particular incentive to see that their spending is maintained in this area and that their services are enhanced. As the noble Lord knows, because of an amendment inserted by this House during our consideration of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, local authorities are under a duty to provide both educational and recreational positive leisure-time activities for young people aged 13 to 19. As part of that duty, young people should be able to access sufficient activities and facilities aimed at their personal and social development. That was a specific new duty placed on local authorities that we believe will have the effect of ensuring that they take their responsibilities in that area more seriously than previously.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, in the aftermath of the tragic killings in south London, everyone interviewed, whatever their age, said that there was nothing for the young to do. Can the Minister say what activities have been targeted in areas where gang culture is a problem? How are the Government involving the voluntary sector, which does such wonderful work in this area?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. All the activities that he has mentioned come within the purview of my department. Indeed, with the creation of children's services departments and children's trusts at local authority level, there is now capacity to join up funding streams and responsibilities in that area much more effectively than previously has been the case. In respect of special educational needs, which he mentioned, spending in that area has risen by more than £1 billion in the past five years. Of course, that benefits especially those who exhibit ADHD behavioural issues, when special needs mean that they need special targeted help and support to enable their learning to advance.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. Local authorities are mindful of their wider duties. However, on the investment, to reiterate the figures I gave in my Answer, spending on youth services is now £403 million a year, up from £288 million only six years ago. That is a significant increase in investment. Of course, the more money we spend up front in seeing that young people have worthwhile activities, the less will later go into the youth custody estate.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the Youth Opportunity Fund and the Youth Capital Fund to which I referred earlier seek to encourage organisations not in the mainstream of providers to become engaged, including a large number of voluntary organisations. We have also strongly encouraged local authorities to engage with the faith communities, including the Church of England, and an increasing number of them are doing so. The Urban Bishops Panel recently met my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to discuss the churches' engagement in this area, and I know that the provision of youth services was discussed.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, when do the Government expect to be able to publish any decisions reached as a result of the responses to the consultation document Confidence and Confidentiality? Do they realise that this matter is quite urgent in the wake of a number cases where faulty professional evidence led to grave miscarriages of justice that have undermined public confidence?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lord, I agree with the view of the noble and learned Baroness that this is a difficult issue that involves striking a balance. I agree with the proposition that the interests of the child are paramount. Our proposal was that the press could come in as of right but could be excluded by the judge. Much of the response to the consultation has said that children and other people would not feel comfortable with the starting point being that the press would be in a court where part of their duty is to keep confidential the identity of individual children. It is important that these courts are not secret, but it is very important that people whose lives are being resolved by them feel confident in them.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the problems encountered by parents whose children are taken away from them? When they feel that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice, the gagging order applied by these courts means that they can speak only to their MP or their lawyer. I have spoken to many such parents here under parliamentary privilege. They cannot go to anybody but their lawyer, who they may feel to be inadequate, or their MP, who also may not be able to help, because of the gagging orders. Is there any way that these orders can be relaxed a little so that they can go to other people for good advice?

Lord Soley: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will know that I chaired a committee on the matter to which my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss gave evidence. It is a difficult area. Will he in his consultations and discussions involve the Press Complaints Commission, because if we had better guarantees that the coverage of such cases would be carried out with extra sensitivity, it might be possible to move in the direction of more openness, which most people would like to see?

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support this amendment, provided that my noble friend asserts that the wording is incorrect but the spirit is fine. I want to help my noble friend to arrive at the correct result because responsibility in law for corporate manslaughter and homicide is overdue. It behoves the noble Baroness to spell out where individual responsibility lies. As far as I know—and I may be wrong—individuals would be held liable in the circumstances spelled out in this amendment. A member of senior management—which is defined—who has,
	"connived, conspired or colluded in the commission of an offence of corporate manslaughter or corporate homicide",
	should be liable if he has so behaved. I cannot see any reason why, when there has been such an open breach of the law, a person should not be held liable. I invite my noble friend to define whether it is possible to prosecute such people under the present law?
	It is extraordinarily difficult to prosecute successfully and to hold individuals to account for very serious defaults, but it is not impossible to do so. On the question of evidence, it may be very difficult to come to this conclusion. But when penalties are envisaged in the circumstances that are spelt out here, it is inevitable that senior management will be held liable for their defaults. Should not corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide be elevated in the criminal lexicon? If not, why not?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely understand the passion with which each of my noble friends expresses their view? Over the past 10 years there have been only seven successful prosecutions for corporate manslaughter, which have all been against small companies, where it is easier to satisfy the requirements of the current law. It has also been possible to prosecute individuals when liability is clear and there is evidence to do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, set out.
	The problem has perennially been dealing with corporate responsibility, which is the thrust of the Bill. I understand the concerns that noble Lords share. The Bill is designed to provide a more effective means of attaching liability for manslaughter to corporate bodies and other organisations. It is not a proper vehicle for seeking to change the circumstances in which individuals are liable for criminal offences, either as primary offenders or through secondary liability.
	There is not a great deal that I can add to the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Bassam on previous occasions and I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily from other debates. However, I would be happy to set out in brief the Government's reasoning and I commend my noble friends for their ingenuity in drafting the amendment. There is copious evidence that the law takes a narrow and artificial approach to attributing liability for manslaughter to organisations. The common law offence of involuntary manslaughter has developed over time to include liability for gross negligence. That is tested objectively, by the reference to the duties of care that a person owes and whether their conduct falls far below this.
	However, the law of corporate attribution has failed to keep pace. We were reminded of this particularly in the failed prosecution of P&O Ferries following the "Herald of Free Enterprise" tragedy. Despite efforts by the Crown in proceedings following the Southall crash to widen the test for liability in common law, the courts declined to take that step. It is not in relation to individual liability that we have had the problem, it is in wider liability.
	We have before us a vehicle that will at last deliver the change that we want. The question of individual liability is not simply a derivative question from the new corporate offence but one of amending the existing framework; as such, it involves wider considerations than we are dealing with in the Bill. The Government do not consider that this Bill is the right place to tackle those wider, more complex issues and therefore have resisted extending the Bill to individuals.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	It is widely recognised that digital switchover will deliver substantial benefits. There are benefits to individuals. Digital TV offers greater choice of channels, better picture quality, more interactivity and access services such as audio description. Consumers can even access a range of digital radio stations.
	However, at the moment, 25 per cent of homes cannot get digital TV via an aerial. This figure cannot be increased until analogue TV transmissions end. We believe that it is important that consumers who get analogue services now should have a choice in digital TV provision, and we need to bring about the end of analogue TV broadcasting for this to happen.
	There are also benefits to broadcasters in not having to continue to invest in outdated analogue technology and from the end of simulcasting in analogue and digital, which is both costly and inefficient. Finally, there are benefits to the whole country, as efficient digital broadcasting will free up spectrum for other uses. This is often referred to as the "digital dividend". This spectrum could be used for new services such as high definition TV, more local TV, or mobile data services. Ofcom is consulting on the best way to make this spectrum available for future use.
	In September 2005, we set out the economic impact of digital switchover in the regulatory impact assessment. The net benefit to the United Kingdom was then estimated to be £1.7 billion. This is a prize worth having. Other countries feel the same way. Digital switchover is taking place all over Europe. There are no advantages and plenty of disadvantages if the UK is left in an analogue ghetto while everyone else embraces the advantages of digital. Technology is changing rapidly and we must change with it or be left behind. This will, of course, mean that everyone will have to take steps to ensure that they can continue to receive television after the switchover. People will be able to do this in a number of ways—satellite, cable, digital terrestrial via an aerial, or television via the internet. It is not essential to get a new TV, though many people may decide to do so. But everyone will have to have done something if they want to continue to receive a TV signal once their area switches off.
	Digital switchover is a massive undertaking, comparable to conversion to North Sea gas or decimalisation. The process cannot be left to chance. It needs proper planning and co-ordination. Broadcasters, transmission companies, government, Ofcom and individuals all have a role to play. Of vital importance is the role of Digital UK. This is a not-for-profit body which has been set up by public service broadcasters and others to co-ordinate digital switchover and advise the public about digital television. It is leading a major information campaign to ensure that everyone knows what is happening, what they need to do, and when. Noble Lords may by now be familiar with Digit Al, the little robot used to get the message across. Between now and switchover, Digital UK will be communicating with every single TV viewing household in the country to ensure that they can prepare for the change.
	The results of this co-ordination are impressive, both in take-up and awareness. According to the Ofcom digital television progress report for the third quarter of last year, the proportion of households in the United Kingdom which received digital television services on their primary TV now stands at more than 70 per cent. The DUK Ofcom quarterly tracker shows that awareness of switchover nationally is 80 per cent and even higher in the areas where switchover will happen earliest. The figure for Borders, the first region to switch over, is 91 per cent.
	Digital UK is doing important scoping work with charities. I am sure that charities will have a significant role to play, both in communicating the switchover message and in providing practical help and advice. Digital UK is in discussion with major charities to see how it can help people who might have problems with switching over.
	This brings me naturally to the digital switchover help scheme. We do not want anyone to be left behind by digital switchover. We have run trials in Ferryside and Bolton, which have taught us valuable lessons. The evidence from these trials and from research, carried out both by the department and the DTI in 2003 and 2004, is that some groups—namely, those aged 75 and over, those with a serious disability and the blind or partially sighted—are likely to have particular difficulty in making the switchover. For example, they may have difficulty installing and operating the equipment.
	We are therefore proposing to introduce a help scheme which will provide practical support with selecting, installing and using digital TV equipment. Each eligible household will be provided with equipment to convert one television set. While there will be some choice, this will usually take the form of a digital TV set-top box.
	This provision will be free for those on income support, income-related jobseeker's allowance or pension credit. All other eligible households will pay a modest £40 fee. It is important to recognise that low income as such is not a particular barrier to take-up. Our research shows that digital take-up among low-income households is not that far off the national average. The Ofcom DUK tracker suggests that digital take-up among low income families is 74 per cent compared with 79 per cent nationally.
	It is right that those who can afford it should contribute to the costs of the scheme. The level of the charge will be less than the cost of providing assistance, so there is still an element of subsidy. The same tracker suggests that take-up rates among the over-75s are just 45 per cent. Therefore, we will be concentrating help where need appears to be greatest.
	The help scheme has a crucial role to play in ensuring that switchover is managed painlessly and brings the benefits of switchover to the whole population. It is designed to be platform-neutral, so all households will be entitled to a choice of options for getting their digital TV services. If a householder chooses a more expensive option, such as an integrated TV or a subscription service, the help scheme will contribute to their costs.
	The BBC White Paper makes it clear that the BBC will help to establish and fund the scheme. Universal access is a key part of the BBC remit and only switchover will ensure that all licence fee payers can receive the BBC's digital services through an aerial. It is therefore right that a trusted institution such as the BBC should take a leading role in making digital switchover happen, by helping to establish and fund the help scheme as part of its wider role in building digital Britain and thereby ensure that no one is left behind.
	We have said that the funding, which we believe to be about £600 million, will be ring-fenced to ensure that it cannot be used for purposes other than digital switchover. We have also said that the costs of the help scheme will not have an impact on the BBC's programme budget. Any cost overrun will be met from the public purse.
	We are still discussing with the BBC how the scheme should be developed and run. As the Bill itself makes clear, we expect that it will either be the BBC, the Government or a combination of the two. Whatever approach is agreed, some other organisation will be responsible for delivering the scheme, and we have jointly begun the procurement process to identify a suitable contractor. Detailed scheme rules will be set out in a scheme agreement with the DCMS, made under provisions in the BBC agreement, and which the Government hope to conclude shortly.
	We want this scheme to be as effective as possible, and to make it as easy as possible for the applicant. We have consulted the Consumer Expert Group and others. The Consumer Expert Group reflects the views of a wide range of charitable and voluntary groups with an interest in this question. It recognises that digital TV offers many benefits for the people it represents, not least in terms of improved access services such as audio description. The Consumer Expert Group's clear view is that the scheme will be more effective if we actively approach those who are eligible. It said:
	"There should be a clear duty on the government to get in touch with people who are eligible for the targeted assistance scheme for vulnerable groups. The administrators of the targeted help scheme should therefore be given access to central databases to help identify people who would be eligible. Data protection issues should not stand in the way of doing this".
	We agree with that view. That is why we have this Bill before us.
	The Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill will permit social security data and information held by local authorities on people who have registered as being blind or partially sighted to be shared with the administrator of the help scheme so that they can get in touch directly with people eligible for assistance. That will enable the scheme to target individuals, and confirm entitlement, without the need for a lengthy claims procedure. It will make the scheme easier to use and should, as a result, improve take-up rates.
	It is worth remembering that the BBC has had access to social security data since 2000 in order to administer the 75 or over licence fee scheme, a scheme which has been widely welcomed. The contractor running the help scheme will have access to data only for the purpose of targeting individuals and dealing with eligibility.
	There is a range of protections in the Bill and outside—for example, the Data Protection Act—to ensure that the information is protected and used only for the very narrow purpose of supporting the rollout of the help scheme for digital switchover. The Bill makes it an offence to disclose such information without "lawful authority". The penalties available on conviction are the same as those under Social Security Administration Act 1992.
	The powers in the Bill are permissive. There is no requirement on the Department for Work and Pensions to share data. That means that DWP will need to be satisfied that the arrangements put in place by the BBC and its contractors ensure that social security information is properly safeguarded.
	In due course, I am sure that the House will want to press me on why there is not a sunset clause in the Bill. The reasoning is straightforward. The data which the Bill allows to be released can be used only in connection with switchover help functions. Therefore, once switchover is complete, the powers are redundant. In other words, the Bill has a de facto sunset clause already. However, I am quite sure that noble Lords will want to return to this matter in Committee.
	I hope the House will agree that this is a relatively modest but none the less important piece of legislation. It will involve the disclosure of personal data, but it is for what is clearly a sensible and worthwhile cause; assisting potentially vulnerable groups through the switchover process. Many of those eligible will not need assistance of any sort, and many will have already gone digital, but we want to ensure that everyone can make the switch. This Bill will help to ensure that the benefits of digital TV are universal. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, it is axiomatic to our understanding of democracy in this country that we not only enjoy free speech but we also honour individuals and their proper right to privacy. It therefore behoves us always and in every case to ponder carefully any proposed legislation that requires the disclosure of information about individuals, even when there is precedence for the use of such information—the Minister mentioned the year 2000 in relation to this—and, as in the case of the Bill, the reasons for such disclosure seem to be common sense. Cliché scenarios about this being the thin edge of the wedge are not appropriate for this debate, yet we would be unwise not to recognise that there are, and always will be, seeds of danger to democracy when legislation, however well intentioned, requires information about individuals and the disclosure of their personal data on the grounds of what is deemed to be in their interests. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that there are serious data protection and related issues in this.
	Nevertheless, it seems likely that almost all, if not all, the people whom this legislation is designed to help will welcome the benefits intended and the process whereby they are achieved. Indeed, I had a conversation only this morning with the policy department of the Royal British Legion, of which I am national chaplain. It is the legion's view that veterans would almost certainly be happy with the disclosure of such information for the specific purpose proposed in the Bill.
	I was also interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, about the need to protect people from responding with more information about their particular condition than is actually required by the purpose of the Bill. Nevertheless, even among the veterans, there may still be people who will be among the small number unable to receive programmes after the switch off in their area because, on present plans, digital broadcasts will not reach 100 per cent of the population. The Minister said that no one will be left behind, but that has already been demonstrated to be not quite true, and the points that have been made in this debate on satellite TV are also worthy of deeper consideration.
	I want to flag up my concerns about the decision to take 75 as the target age for helping the elderly. We will look at this in more detail in Committee. My understanding is that the DCMS's digital switchover technical trials found that nearly as many households with people aged more than 65 required assistance with installation as households with people aged more than 75. I want to scrutinise the reasons for that 10-year gap in the Bill in Committee.
	There are other people outside the target group, such as families without 65 or 75 year-olds, who may find that the costs of digital switchover place a heavy burden on small budgets, perhaps because of costs imposed by private or social landlords in relation to aerial upgrades or putting up satellite dishes. Charges levied for upgrades to communal aerial systems can run into several hundred pounds per dwelling. I note that people in public housing will not face such charges, but others who are not included in the scheme may genuinely need appropriately targeted help. The report Communal TV Systems and Digital Switchover, which was published by NOP World in February 2005, stated that while only 20 per cent of UK households receive TV signals through communal TV systems, 74 per cent of registered social landlords own or manage properties with such systems.
	I suspect that some social landlords are going to—they may have little option to do otherwise—pass those costs on to tenants who themselves will need but will not be eligible to receive help. I am simply trying to think of some of the people in some of the parishes in areas of, say, the Manchester diocese, who could so easily miss out on assistance and fall through the net because their particular vulnerable situation is not covered by this tightly defined Bill.
	That leads me to wonder whether the costs of providing help to vulnerable people have been underestimated. Here I raise a vexed question that was addressed by the Select Committee, has previously been debated and was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising; the fact that the costs have to be covered by the BBC licence-fee payer rather than by the Government. I wonder whether financial policy is forcing too narrow a definition of those eligible for help. If the costs are determining the decision to help 75 year-olds rather than younger people, germane to this debate is the DCMS consumer expert group to which the Minister referred and its report in June 2006. The report entitled, Supporting Vulnerable Customers with targeted assistance at and after Digital TV Switchover, said that details of the support package,
	"should not be set as a result of what funding is currently allocated, but ... should be determined in relation to the level of need of vulnerable people".
	Clearly there is an area to be explored further in later stages of the Bill, but given the more broad-brush opportunity provided by Second Reading, I want to highlight a potential difficulty if the costs of helping the vulnerable turn out to be greater for the BBC than at first thought, either because they have even now been underestimated or because in Committee the definitions of eligibility for help are widened. The money is still below the point at which the Government have undertaken to help, and what would be unfortunate would be the possible impoverishment of creative programme-making were it to become necessary for further BBC funds from the licence-fee payer to be diverted to cover greater digitalisation costs. That would be not only unfortunate but unacceptable.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for miscalculating the start time of this debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, for appearing halfway through his words. This Bill is necessary because of the Government's decision to go for a mandatory rolling programme of switchover. There are things that one could say about that. I partially agree with my noble friend Lord Maxton about the timing, given the technological possibilities down the line. The decision has been made and we therefore need to provide for helping some people switch over and for the arising data protection issues.
	I will touch on those issues, but I want to use the Second Reading context to say some wider things about the digital switchover and its impact. I declare a general interest as chair of the National Consumer Council, although not everything I will say is necessarily in line with its policy. My first point concerns the issue of consumer awareness, which has not been much touched on, although it is key. In one sense you could argue that a lot of people, at least in general terms, are aware of digital switchover and are buying digital televisions. At least one set is digital in most households. The recent work of Digital UK and others in raising awareness is ongoing. But the full impact and cost of so doing to individual households has not been fully realised. In recent years, people have replaced their televisions roughly every seven, eight, nine or 10 years, due to the reliability of television technology. That means that people who bought a television two or three years ago, when it could not possibly be digital—or, at the very least, they would be paying a huge premium to get a digital television—are going to have to replace it much earlier.
	The argument is made that it is only the cost of the digibox that each household will have to face, but there are two problems with that. First, most households have more than one television, especially households with children. Regrettable or not, most children have a TV in their bedroom, which will not be sorted out by a single digibox in the front room. Secondly, it is a fact to which I can attest myself that not all digiboxes work that well. There may be aerial or location problems—and there are some problems with the quality of digital tuning in any case. So the promised improvement in reception is not necessarily there and in any case will cost households rather more than the figure of £45 to £50 that has been put around.
	There has also been some confusion about labelling. I appreciate that there has been some considerable improvement by retailers and manufacturers—at least, leading retailers—in recent years. Only a few months ago, it was quite difficult to distinguish which sets were digitally compatible and which were not. Even now, because three pieces of technology are changing at the same time, with the switch to digital, the offer of high definition and plasma screens, there is a lot of confusion about labelling, advertising and pricing of the various sets. A lot of people remain confused. I do not think that the Government have faced up to the possible public backlash against the switchover because of that confusion or additional cost.
	I shall add another point, wearing my environmental hat. The technology of audio-visual equipment and IT equipment are rapidly merging, but both have the unfortunate side effect that the new generation is more consumptive of CO2 than was the past generation. That is in contrast to other areas of consumer goods such as white goods or automobiles, with which substantial technological changes have reduced the carbon take. If we genuinely want sustainable consumption and to ensure that consumers, when so motivated, can make greener choices in buying fridges and cars, the manufacturers need at least to be encouraged to provide less environmentally expensive new generation TV sets and a default to off rather than to stand-by.
	My third point relates to issues raised by the right reverend Prelate as well as the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, and others, about people who live in council blocks, with social or private landlords, when the landlord is negotiating with the provider to provide the facility in their estate or block. I declare an indirect interest as the spouse of a lessee. But whether they are councils, ALMOs, stock transfer companies or social or private landlords, they are already making decisions about what deal they are going to do with which provider. For the individual flat owner or tenant, there is no choice of platform—that has already been decided for him. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, referred to one London borough which is already assessing the cost and passing it on to its tenants and lessees. So not only is there no choice but the cost is substantially much higher than that quoted for the individual household outside such estates or flats. In that London borough, the service charge to lessees will be £300 and the cost to tenants will be £1 or £2 a week for a period of four or five years. That adds up to a lot more than £45 to £50.
	That borough is assuring those tenants who are on housing benefit that housing benefit will increase to cover the charge. Is that the case? If it is, that is an additional cost. I assume that the BBC will not be administering housing benefit as well as its other new duties. It could be quite a substantial cost, since well over half the tenants on most council estates and quite a number of lessees are entitled to housing benefit. Those households are not necessarily in the digital switchover support scheme for whom this Bill provides the ability to require information and the associated data protection provisions—the over 75s and the disabled. If it is the case, is there an estimate of the cost of increasing housing benefit? If not, that is an additional cost on people who are almost by definition low-income groups and disadvantaged. By no means are all of them in the categories that the Bill is designed to protect.
	That brings me to my final point: the way we are financing switchover. That has been expounded well, and at greater length than I intend, by my noble friend Lord Maxton and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I am a great supporter of the BBC. I am glad to see the proposal in the press this morning about the BBC providing a Freeview platform as a rival to other providers. I hope that it comes off. In debates about the future of the BBC, I always try to preserve its rights and support the licence fee. While there may be organisations that are better at administering social security and welfare provision than the DWP, I doubt very much that even the strongest supporter of the BBC would feature it among them. It is an abuse of the licence fee, which is essentially a poll tax for a given service, for part of the welfare programme to be raised in that way. At the very least, I would hope that the Minister could give the assurance for which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, asked; that if the costs go over £600 million then that will not be charged again to the BBC. Even as it is, it has distorted two things. It has distorted the BBC's priorities in terms of what licence fee is defensible and it has distorted what the public who pay the licence fee think of the BBC. That £600 million does not relate to its programme-making capacity; it relates to something which ought to be a function of central government, funded by direct taxation.
	While I recognise the necessity for the Bill, I have severe reservations about the whole programme. I am concerned about the impact on lower-income groups in social housing and other situations, where decisions are taken above their heads and the choice of platform does not exist. I am also concerned about the basis of funding.

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose and aims of the Bill so clearly.
	It is an important Bill, which will allow the Government to proceed with digital switchover and, crucially, as we have heard today, target assistance for the most vulnerable. It will allow data to be made available so that the Government can go ahead with a package of help for such people. We on these Benches welcome the principle of the Bill and the benefits that switchover will bring; namely, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, more TV channels and programmes, enhanced reception quality and more efficient use of spectrum.
	However, we have concerns about where we are in the process; the methods and means mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Maxton; the fact that very limited information appears to be available; and the fact that much of that information is still not finalised. Switchover was first discussed in 1999—almost eight years ago. Why has it taken so long to reach the point at which we are today? Why, when the Bill has already been through another place, do we still not have all the details about the proposed help scheme?
	The Government have decided that the BBC will administer the scheme as part of the new royal charter, agreement and licence fee settlement. However, as the Minister told us at the beginning of this debate, the BBC will not deliver the scheme on the ground. That function will be contracted out. As we can see from the Explanatory Notes on Clause 1
	"the exact structure has not yet been finally determined".
	Is not this getting close to brinksmanship?
	Can we be assured that when the agreement with the BBC is finally reached, we shall receive the details? Is it not the case that unless decisions are made very soon, there will be no time to implement the scheme properly before it starts in the Borders in 2008? Is it not the case that the Whitehaven scheme, scheduled to start this autumn, will not, for example, use the same equipment as that likely to be used elsewhere? Is this a sensible way in which to proceed?
	The Government are still in discussion with the BBC about its exact role. Due to what the BBC Trust called a challenging licence fee settlement, it
	"is seeking further reassurance from the Government that involvement with the scheme will not impact on the BBC's programmes and services".
	Will the Minister reassure the House that the trust will receive those reassurances, that should matters go awry, the BBC will not in effect be left to carry the can, and that the Secretary of State, not the licence fee payers, will pick up any extra bill?
	Together with everyone who has spoken across the House today, we would argue that the licence fee payer should not fund the scheme at all. However, under the Bill's proposals, not only will the BBC oversee this targeted help scheme but it will be funded through the licence fee, thus distorting its function, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said.
	I know that the Secretary of State's view is that it is a broadcasting cost; it is not. As your Lordships have heard from so many, as with free TV licences for the over-75s, it is dictated by government social policy, and the Government should pay. The Government have set a figure of £600 million for the scheme, but we do not know how that figure has been arrived at. The limited scope of the Bill means that it appears to be impossible to clarify who exactly will be helped. It has emerged from answers to a range of parliamentary Questions that the number of people who will need help is growing. During the past year, it rose from 5 million to an estimated 7.1 million people. Obviously, this has cost implications. Like the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, I was glad to hear from the Minister that the £600 million will be ring-fenced.
	I make a final point on the BBC's role. Why, if it is to contract out the implementation of the scheme, does it need access to the detailed information that this Bill will provide? The agents on the ground need the detail; aggregate figures should be sufficient for the BBC. As the Minister anticipated, we would like to see a sunset clause designed to address our concern that information released should not be kept longer than needed.
	The Government intend to introduce switchover region by region, starting with Whitehaven this autumn, as I mentioned. Switchover assistance will apparently be available in each region eight months before the final transmitter in a given region switches over—or the date on which a transmitter serving the individual switches over—and one month after. In other words, the Bill dies a month after the switchover period in each region. Can the Minister clarify when that one-month period begins? What happens to someone who moves during the process; for example, the old lady who leaves London in 2009, before it switches over, but moves to the Borders after the process there has finished? Is she entitled to any assistance and, if not, why not? For this same reason, these Benches do not support the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that there should be a sunset clause region by region. We shall no doubt return to both these issues in more detail in Grand Committee.
	I will not repeat the arguments that were so eloquently made, but these Benches share the concern expressed across the House about those in rented accommodation. I am particularly intrigued by the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about those on housing benefit. I look forward to hearing the answer to that.
	We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the issue raised by my honourable friends in another place, the Member for Chesterfield and the Member for Bath, and have amended the Bill to enable the help scheme contractor to have access to information held by local authorities and health and social services boards on people registered blind and partially sighted. This will mean that those not over 75 and not on benefits, and so not registered with the Department for Work and Pensions, will not fall through the net and that, in accordance with the advice that the Minister told us the Government received, the contractor can proactively contact them. Thanks to this amendment, 60,000 blind and partially sighted people will now be eligible for assistance. We also congratulate the Government on ensuring that the information they receive will be in appropriate forms: Braille, large print and so on.
	We are pleased that the process will be platform neutral; that people can choose how they wish to get their digital channels, but I was interested in the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, in that regard. The announcement yesterday that the BBC Trust has approved BBC management's proposal to develop and launch Freesat is welcome news and is an additional means of offering licence fee payers free access to digital services.
	Finally, we welcome assurances received from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for broadcasting in another place that this will be a fluid process and that lessons learnt along the way will be acted upon. He said:
	"We do not want to close the door on that process at any point".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/07; col. 37.]
	This seems an eminently sensible way to proceed with such a complex and huge project. I look forward to Grand Committee.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke. They succeeded in worrying me that we will have an intensive Committee stage on this modest little Bill. However, given the nature of your Lordships' House, I was prepared for some trenchant points.
	The debate got off to a vigorous start. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, offered an alternative proposal for tackling switchover and helping those categories that we have defined as requiring help.
	The noble Lord provided an alternative perspective of some significance, and he repudiated in some ways what the Bill states. For instance, he—and, I think, one or two other noble Lords—doubted whether my assertion that the Bill had written into it a sunset clause on information was satisfactory. He will be proposing a schedule to give greater definition to that. We will have time to debate that, and I am open-minded about constructive suggestions wherever they come from, particularly the opposition Front Bench.
	We are all too well aware that we are dealing with sensitive information for a specific purpose against a fairly obvious timescale. Within that framework, the Bill provides the equivalent of a sunset clause by providing closure on that. Although we will discuss the matter further, I recognise the noble Lord's rightly expressed anxiety.
	The noble Lord asked other questions some of which, even at this early stage, I might be able to answer—I expect to be under greater pressure in Committee to answer certain questions. We are committed to the concept and the principle of providing support that is platform-neutral. The noble Lord asked whether claimants would get a free satellite service if no terrestrial service was available, and the answer is yes. We recognise the necessity of ensuring that people are treated fairly and equally, wherever they are. My noble friend Lord Maxton raised some rather more extensive issues than that. I will come on to those points in a moment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howard, asked some general questions about service provision. As far as the Government are concerned, this is a crucial principle in this legislation. At this stage, I can only acknowledge that the noble Lord disagrees with the Government's approach to some of these problems. I have no doubt that he will articulate his position with great fervour in Committee and I will listen carefully to what he has to say. However, he will also recognise that the Bill represents a series of clear decisions by the Government. We hope to defend our structure and will seek to do that in Committee, when these issues can be debated more intensively.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester asked about the degree to which the help scheme could be extended to low-income families. He also mentioned that over-65s may need the same consideration as over-75s. I recognise the right reverend Prelate's excellent motivation in seeking to extend help to the deserving wherever he identifies them. He will appreciate that the Government must draw lines on certain aspects of help and defend their position on the grounds of cost. In my opening contribution I referred to the simple reason why we emphasise the need for help to the over-75s; namely, that the take-up of digital among the over-75s is very low in comparison with the general population. It is about 45 per cent, whereas among the general population the figure is well over 70 per cent. The over-65s are very close to that figure. While we can clearly see a problem with the older age group, we are not able to identify a major barrier to the over-65s keeping up with the rest of the population. That is why we have identified that figure.
	The national take-up rate of 79 per cent is almost matched by lower-income households, where 74 per cent have already gone digital. That goes to show the point that underlies the whole approach to the funding of the BBC and the significance of the role of the BBC. I might also add to that other television services; they mean a great deal to our citizens. That is why, even on very limited budgets, people are prepared to meet very considerable, obvious costs to be able to participate, like the rest of the nation, which shows that television provides for a range of obvious needs.
	I have no doubt that the right reverend Prelate will press me on this in Committee and that we shall debate it further. He will recognise that the Government have drawn a line for very good reasons. He was the first to advance the point, which I anticipated that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, would put with his usual perception and strength, about whether additional cost might impact on the BBC programme budget. I can give a categorical reassurance that we do not intend that to happen. If there are costs beyond the £600 million that has been identified, we intend that they will be analysed separately and come out of the public purse, so that they do not affect the planning, programme budgeting and other aspects of the BBC which are contained at present. There was scarcely a contribution to the debate that did not at some stage raise this very important point; the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, also raised it. I want to reassure all noble Lords on that cardinal point.
	I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his testimony from the British Legion. Of course, we have been in widespread consultation with all groups that have a perspective on the needs of the over-75s and others, so I am grateful for the point that he made—that the Bill will be welcomed. I do not have the slightest doubt that the assistance that we intend to give will not be welcomed just among those who receive it—and among those close to them who recognise the need—but will also be an essential dimension against costs that are being thrust on people as switchover occurs and as the old analogue sets will no longer be capable of receiving the signal.
	My noble friend Lord Maxton, as ever, anticipated that I would not follow him very closely down the route of technological change. I shall not do so, save to say that we are platform neutral on this assistance. We do not think that the technological change will move with quite the rapidity that he advances in his more optimistic vein, but the obvious point is that people will receive broadcasting signals—radioand television—through very different technologies compared with the present broadcasting mechanism. That is already going on to a limited extent. It will move apace, but we have a very real challenge with regard to terrestrial television. The Bill starts by addressing the switch from analogue to digital. I bear in mind that other dimensions will have to be taken into account, and have no doubt that the noble Lord will press these points upon me in Committee.
	I am afraid that I cannot quite follow the noble Lord on Scottish local authorities. If he were right and I were wrong, I would currently be shuddering at the Dispatch Box. I would worry about nothing more than the consequences of devolution upon this kind of broadcasting strategy, and the Bill being caught athwart the issues of Scotland's reserved powers. First, these are reserved powers on broadcasting. Legislation on the information that local authorities may give about their blind and partially sighted citizens is permissive. Whether they participate or not is therefore entirely their decision; no enforcement is involved. Local authorities are therefore not an issue, and I am not going to run foul of his worst fears that, in broadcasting, we are caught up with the proper powers of the Scottish Assembly. Far be it from me to raise the issues of the Scottish Assembly at this juncture, in the context of this modest little Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, identified an important issue, which we must investigate in Committee to some degree. He will recognise that we take seriously whether certain tenants could be exploited because of the charges in force; the charges might be defrayed by housing benefit, but if that were not available individuals would suffer grievously. We will have to work through the details with the noble Lord in Committee. I do not have many technical answers to his point at this stage, except to say that we would worry about the success of the scheme if what he has identified—and I have no reason to doubt his information—proves to be a real problem. Because of the technical nature of his question, and because I am currently singularly ill-equipped to meet it, I shall not write to him, as suggested in my notes—that would be otiose at this stage—but expect that we can discuss the issues in Committee. I have no doubt that he has raised something of great interest to all interested in the Bill. There is no question that we would have to get help and support right if there were a development exploiting the switchover to particular pecuniary advantage, leaving some of our fellow citizens considerably worse off. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising his point, and apologise for not being able to respond in great detail today. He will recognise its significance, and must give me a little time to worry about it further.
	Several noble Lords—including the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler—indicated that because the scheme involved additional, and a different kind of, expenditure by the BBC, it would be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office. We had an intense debate on the whole question of the licence fee, and noble Lords opposite will recognise our principle on this. They are quite properly addressing themselves to the scrutiny of the scheme's operation. I want to respond to the demands of noble Lords that we should proceed with some flexibility, and learn aspects as we go along. It would be extraordinary to think that all aspects of a scheme of this complexity had been fully covered at this point, but the issue of the role of the National Audit Office in relation to the BBC raises wider issues of principle. We have discussed those in the past, and I am not prepared to concede that point.